February 25, 2011

A person at a Tuesday town hall with Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., got up and asked, "Who is going to shoot President Obama?"

The exact wording of the question is not clear because, the Athens Banner-Herald reports, there was a lot of noise at the event.

If you don't know the "exact wording," why do you have some words in quotes? This non-quote has gone viral in the leftosphere, the leftosphere where no one seems to mind all the violent and over-the-top language and imagery at the week-long Wisconsin protests. If you don't have that quote, why are you spewing it out there? Maybe what hasn't changed post-Tucson is you?

Seriously. Why put out a quote that you don't have? You're trying to stir people up and create discord! You are the problem you are talking about? Do you have any self-awareness at all?

The question prompted a "big laugh" from the crowd, in Oglethorpe County, Ga., according to the Banner-Herald. Broun, for his part, did not object to the question. He said in response:

"The thing is, I know there’s a lot of frustration with this president..."

And now, you want to attribute incivility to Broun, but you don't know what he heard. He mentions the president, so presumably, he caught that it was something anti-Obama, but beyond that you are making stuff up.

If the crowd was so big, and it was a planned event, where's the digital video? Don't tell me the crowd was too noisy for anyone to record it AND that the crowd heard it.

Now, as is widely known, it's a serious federal crime to threaten the life of the president, which makes it less likely that the words are as reported in the pseudo-quote. It also makes it less likely that a person of the left was trying to make trouble for Broun (a theory I see some righties are propounding). If it was said, it was said by someone who was both malevolent and stupid. Why would a whole crowd of people give a big laugh when they found themselves in the presence of someone malevolent and stupid?

Althouse later announced that she'd only believe the "shoot Obama" story if she saw a video of the encounter.

Care to quote me? This is about quotes and you can't quote me saying that, because I didn't. Pathetic. I'm announcing that Media Matters is pathetic. And you can quote me.

That's fine, except Broun's staff confirmed the "shoot Obama" question was asked. The Congressman has since sort-of apologized for his non-reaction to the "shoot Obama" question, and the Secret Service was alarmed enough by the question to interview the person who asked it. (The elderly man apologized for the what he said was a joke.)

Still waiting for the video Ann?

Yes, I am. For video or some other good-enough evidence. And you should too. As I've said — nay, announced! — you shouldn't spread viral stories unless and until you at least have your facts straight. When I wrote this post, I'd already seen that Broun’s press secretary, Jessica Morris, reportedly said "Obviously, the question was inappropriate, so Congressman Broun moved on," and I chose not to lengthen my post with the obvious question: What did the person who spoke to her say before she said that?

The quote from Morris doesn't establish that she knew what was said independently from what was just said to her. Whoever elicited that quote from her might have just told her what was purportedly said at the town hall. Imagine a reporter saying, "At the town hall, someone yelled out 'Who is going to shoot President Obama?' Why didn't Congressman Broun denounce that person on the spot?" Her remark would fit that context, and therefore doesn't work as a confirmation of the pseudoquote.

MORE: Now, I'm clicking through to the Washington Post story, which came out after I made this post. And I'm just now paying attention to the business about the Secret Service in the Media Matters piece that links to it. The "ADDED" part above relates only to my reaction to what the spokeswoman said.

A law enforcement source confirmed that the Secret Service interviewed the constituent and determined that he or she was an "elderly person" who now regrets making a bad joke.

"In this case this was poor taste," the source says. "The person realized that."

That WaPo item is updated at 11:50 a.m. to say that "Rep Paul Broun appears to admit he should have condemned his constituent." Broun now repeats the quote, which suggests he heard it that way, and says "I was stunned by the question and chose not to dignify it with a response; therefore, at that moment I moved on to the next person with a question. After the event, my office took action with the appropriate authorities."

So, I'll accept now that the quote was made.

And, Media Matters, what do you say about all the violent images and statements that have been in this last week here in Wisconsin? What do you say about the death threat that was made to me? Where are your condemnations of that? I'm waiting!

150 comments:

Can we start calling out these people with their "Arizona" parallels. by all accounts there was NO POLITICAL RHETORIC involved, civil or uncivil. Bringing it up everytime there's a real "civility" issue is a deliberate non-sequitur.

Update: Broun’s press secretary, Jessica Morris, confirmed that the question was indeed, who is going to shoot Obama? “Obviously, the question was inappropriate, so Congressman Broun moved on,” she said. I guess not everyone on the right takes a Flip camera to public events so we have to trust the Jessica confirmation of the quote.

Update: Broun’s press secretary, Jessica Morris, confirmed that the question was indeed, who is going to shoot Obama? “Obviously, the question was inappropriate, so Congressman Broun moved on,” she said. I guess not everyone on the right takes a Flip camera to public events so we have to trust the Jessica confirmation of the quote.

That's what she thinks she heard, but, as the piece says, there was a lot of noise in the room. Was it accurate?

Interesting he takes a Republican's word on this, but ignores all the Leftist violence.

I think this post was very wise; roesch-voltaire, garage mahal, and Alpha Lib will now come here to breathlessly and "independently" post updates to this tremendously important evidence of violent rhetoric on the right, from a speaker no one can identify using words which nobody clearly heard in a state about as far from Wisconsin, and the violent rehetoric of its Democrat contributing unions, as it is possible to get.

After weeks of democrats comparing Brown to Hitler and wishing death upon him and all republicans, THIS is the evidence of incivility?

Democrats have to know what the word hypocrite means they accuse republicans of it every 15 seconds. Maybe like 'nazi' and 'racist' they think it means 'bad person who does things I don't like.' I dunno.

In a way, I suppose so, in that the old tricks are still being played by the same old tricksters. Fake but accurate -- that's the old trick in play here -- just doesn't work as it did before everyone was in on the game and sharp-eyed observers like Ann were only to willing to point it out.

But, in a more important sense, the ground has shifted completely. All the high-decibel back-and-forth over the last 2 years is bringing clarity despite all the efforts at obfuscation, and fake calls for one-sided 'civility' are having no impact. It's not that anyone is against being civil but that everyone gets the game.

This is what turning points look and sound like, as each side redefines itself while everyone is watching. We are in the midst of major changes, with Wisconsin as the epicenter for now, as the changes bubble up from below. The last two major changes were Washington-led -- basically, the New Deal and the Reagan realignment. This one is, for now, playing out elsewhere, but it's gathering strength and will get to Washington soon enough.

His press secretary confirmed the quote. I fail to see how there's any question/doubt that this was asked. Are you all in disbelief, or are you so wrapped up in your own views that you simply refuse to believe that this was asked?

The political climate in this country is disgusting--from both the right and the left. Signs and protests in WI, absurd questions in Georgia...it's just gotten so out of hand.

The best lesson here is that even a veiled rhetorical threat to shoot a President must be done either by a terminally stupid person or by a Dem plant trying to smear you. So ALWAYS call them out and stop them from the illegal speech. We have done that to commenters on Althouse, as I recall.

@Jim -- Yet for all this incivility, is there any more political violence today than any other time? You can pick a decade and I'll name names.

For most politicized people attention is paid to extreme speech only if it can be used to embarrass their political opponents.

Consider the attention being paid to an inflammatory statement made by a single moron at a town hall meeting held by an obscure representative who failed to respond in kind. Is this evidence of the spread of incivility? Or is it evidence of something else?

If you look hard enough, it's not hard to find terrible trivialities with which to shock your fellow travelers, but most people have more interesting hobbies.

Last night I was so wound up on too much Mountain Dew after a marathon night of World of Warcraft I couldn't sleep so I went out on the patio for some fresh air and sitting around my patio table was an alien, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster. They told me that Elvis wasn't able to make it and they needed a fourth for Euchre.

As I never was elected to public office that automatically qualifies my honesty in saying this actually happened photographic evidence notwithstanding.

What's odd is that our hostess rightly criticizes the lazy journalism practiced in the original article and suddenly she does or does not believe a whole raft of statements that commenters here would like her to type.

The critique stands on its own merits with regards to the shoddy journalism. And journalists have earned skepticism with their "JournoList", fake but accurate defenses and obvious bias in things political.

I wish more of the commenters here (some on both sides) practiced reasoned skepticism in such matters.

That's a terrible analogy. Here we're talking about words uttered; in Kennedy's case we had an actual dead President--No need for film to confirm that. Words are ephemeral, dead corpses are not (relatively speaking).

That being said, it sounds like there's enough corroboration here to make it believable. That kind of discourse is sick and it shouldn't be tolerated by anyone, left or right.

Paul Broun’s Statement On The Obama Question:“Tuesday night at a town hall meeting in Oglethorpe County, Georgia an elderly man asked the abhorrent question, “Who’s going to shoot Obama?” I was stunned by the question and chose not to dignify it with a response; therefore, at that moment I moved on to the next person with a question. After the event, my office took action with the appropriate authorities. I deeply regret that this incident happened at all. Furthermore, I condemn all statements—made in sincerity or jest—that threaten or suggest the use of violence against the President of the United States or any other public official. Such rhetoric cannot and will not be tolerated.”

Fen, you seem to have some serious mental issues. I don't know what they are, but they're obviously pretty advanced at this stage.

The congressman's press secretary confirmed the question was asked, and that the congressman also skipped the question. The congressman also condemned the question afterwards. The man who asked the question was questioned by the Secret Service following the town hall meeting. No, this wasn't something taken out of context--it was a direct quote. One of these days, you'll be able to put your absurd biases behind you. Oh wait, no you won't. Please, get some help.

Broun heard exactly what was said and acted as if it was a normal form of discourse...until he realized what as ass he was by not confronting the jackoff:

Political Insider / 2:25 pm February 25, 2011, by jgalloway

“Tuesday night at a town hall meeting in Oglethorpe County, Georgia an elderly man asked the abhorrent question, “Who’s going to shoot Obama?” I was stunned by the question and chose not to dignify it with a response; therefore, at that moment I moved on to the next person with a question.

Was watching a David Frost interview w/Gore Vidal about 25/30 years ago and Vidal was quite logically/eloquently explaining why there isn't a spit of difference between Dems and Reps as once they get elected most are only worried about raising $$$, special interest, lobbyists, PACS etc. to get re-elected. As the past (2) elections have indicated er after 2008 it was non-stop winger whining and after 2010 non-stop liberal whining.

but, but, but the wingers still have liberals beat by a tad ;) in the sore loser/sour grape category as Barack Hussein Obama's election really threw conservatives for a loop, eh as their entire universe crumbled before their very eyes lol.

Nothing new under the sun since the beginning of time ie uneducated serfs and warlords.

and so it goes ...

>

We now return you to conservatives and liberals yellin' at each other 24/7 at a political blog to no effect!

"Now, as is widely known, it's a serious federal crime to threaten the life of the president"

Only if it's a credible threat. It's perfectly legal to ask who's going to shoot the President. It's perfectly legal to say that somebody ought to shoot him, or to call for some brave soul to shoot him. It's perfectly legal to hang him in effigy. It's even perfectly legal to say that in some hypothetical situation I would shoot him. Any Secret Serviceman who arrested someone for saying that would lose his house to a Bivens suit. Government workers can't even be fired for saying "If anyone goes for Obama, I hope they get him". It's also legal to joke on national television that the Secret Service have orders to shoot Biden if anything should happen to Obama.

Eight years of vitriolic Bush-bashing - sanctioned by the left, Hollywood and the media - that wasn't limited to protests but was in movies, TV shows, music concerts, stand-up routines, news shows, magazines, newspapers, rap songs, EVERYWHERE has contributed more than anything, in my opinion, to the current angry environment. The sheer volume of the name-calling and angry insults was amazing and never-ending (I actually thought Bush might be assassinated after the 2004 election). I even cancelled our local paper because the Bush-bashing was so pervasive that it even made it into the graphic of an article about street names in the city, of all things. For the left to now decry the "incivilty" of the current political climate is just jaw-droppingly hypocritical.

Call you local FBI field office and take a shot at it, and see if they ignore it before knowing whether it's "credible" or not.

§ 871.: Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

It's been several years, already, but it's good to see people start to recognize that virtually anything coming from the left has to be treated as if it were hostile testimony in a court of law... unless it can be documented and corroborated it is just hearsay or invention.

They really don't care about the truth. This has been obvious since the Tawana Brawley Affair, if not earlier, and driven home by their reaction to false charges of date rape, the pillorying of the Duke lacrosse team, on and on.

Arguably, the left took the turn into institutionalized dishonesty in the early 1930s when it denied and then defended Stalin's collectivization genocide, then turned on a dime with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and turned back when Hitler attacked the USSR 6-22-41. It had already been accepted in the Stalinist Terror that guilt or innocence didn't matter, the only thing of consequence was whether a particular action served the Party.

By now, this is so deep in the left's DNA that it cannot be separated from everything else they believe and do.

There are no doubt a few exceptions... but damn few, and they stand out (C. Hitchens, P. Berman come to mind) like beacons.

After April 15, 1865, even mentioning the the future shooting of the President has been the dumbest speech one can make. Ask Dr. Mudd how much benefit of the doubt and mercy is given to such people. Since that day, the million men of the GAR and their descendants have dared fools to cross that line.

Jeremy...We really love Ritmo. All of our sick-o-phant humor must go over your head. Ritmo coined the word "Irrelephants", and us sick-o-phants had to bust him up some for that. But, what is important to realize here is that the Professor suffers from a kind heart that gets queasy around violence. She wont even kill a bug in her curtains.

-----former law student said... Apparently, were it not for the Zapruder film, JFK would be alive today. -----

Apparently --- given the left's tendency rewriting history, if it were not for the zapruder film it would now be established truth that JFK ascended to heaven where he rules with Teddy Kennedy, who never killed a woman by driving off a bridge.

Jeremy...I was not being serious. All of this searching out of violent metaphors in each sides speech patterns is weak slander and counter slander. And the the riot threats yelled in assembled groups is another thing...that IS bad stuff. And some free speechers need to learn there is a bright line boundary against any type of threat to shoot a President. So I agree with you here.

The link to the Althouse death threat discussed on the Best Of The Web needs a fix, since it goes to Taranto's latest column instead of to the 2/22 column. Here's the actual link: http://on.wsj.com/e8y9jf

I really think the left is trying to provoke those of us on the other side whether conservative or libertarian to say or do something that can by viewed as violence against them. Of course the media will run wild with this and that one incident will be verification of every negative thing they have said about the right and/or the Tea Party. So we need to be vigilant and keep our cool. Their violence will always be ignored or discounted by the co-conspirators in the media - ours will not.

You should probably spend a little more time studying, and less time raging here in the comments, if you wish to graduate high school.

There are plenty of things for people to get upset about on a given day, but as regards this particular issue, I think the "wingers" are mostly upset at the strange denial of reality that takes place in the media.

We have plenty of actual, documented cases of "hate rhetoric," or whatever you want to call it, on the left. But the media narrative says union workers are just hard-working regular slobs, and we have to take their side against "the man." (Never mind that this dynamic doesn't remotely apply in the case of public sector workers). So, we don't hear about it.

Yet, we hear all about these phantom tea party terrorists (Bloomberg, anyone?), and various other nonsense, including the knee-jerk commentary that Loughner was some kind of right-wing crazy.

All of this is compounded, of course, but the ever-morally-superior members of the left wing. Liberals know they're smarter than those 'wingers. They see the evidence at their every get-together with like-minded souls, and when that's not enough every few years someone will put out a study corroborating this belief. And so we hear many a sober, considered judgment about these rash tea partiers and their dangerous anti-government rhetoric, but almost nothing about the Bushitler/Mubarak=Walker garbage.

It's almost too much sham to stomach when one sees one of those responsible, dignified lefties (the NYT, almost any academic, sanctimonious blog commenters...) declaim violence and hateful rhetoric, when we know they mean no such thing. As ever, there is no absolute truth: there is only what advances the cause. It's OK for lefties to spout off about assassinating Bush, because he deserved it! But when some 96 year old man at a congressional meet n' greet says something silly, well, it's just another indication that those right-wing mobs are cleaning out their rifles and getting ready for the rapture.

This is what happens when your politics is your religion, and you become morally certain about your voting habits. You get unhinged.

"After the event, my office took action with the appropriate authorities"

Does that mean his office is the one who called the Secret Service about this incident? If so, I'd say that radically changes the story trying to be peddled.

Not that it matters. The concern being expressed is really all just political posturing. Pretty much like when a soccer player falls to the ground and cries out in pain, even when no other player was near him. It's all for the sake of the supposed ref, just a game that everyone is playing.

Jake Badlands - Why would I give a rat's ass about the same old teabagger drivel you're posting here?

99% of the peole here spend 99% of their time sucking on each other, never disagreeing, never really debating anyting...just regurgitating the same silly right wing shit you all listen to every day of the week on Fox or with the fat man on the radio...over and over again.

Just read through the comments on any thread, any topic...and show me where any of you ever really disagree about anything.

The Queen sets the plate and you all lap it up.

And, as always, it's ALL about denigrating, whining and bitching about anything relating to president Obama or anybody with whom you disagree or who isn't conservative enough for you.

If some yahoo had said what this old fart said at a Democratic townhall meeting while Bush was president you and the rest of the local teabaggers would be shitting your pants, screaming to high heaven...and you all know it, too.

So stuff your sermonizing bullshit up you right wing ass...because that's exactly where it belongs.

Now Jeremy, I know you're a liberal and you guys are losing really, really badly. I mean considering how well you did in '08, man it must suck to be an effeminate liberal (but then I repeat myself) these days. And I think the word you're looking for is "culo." Now get on back to DKos before you hurt yourself.

Trooper as you know Ut's post are ugly to say the least and even Seven Machos said...Roesch -- I disagree with you vehemently because you are sadly wrong about so much but this Ut guy's rhetoric is just stupid -- and a little scary. I apologize for this bastard.